Has anyone heard of Arian Christianity?

Question

"Arius was a senior presbyter in charge of Baucalis...Alexandria. Around 318 CE, he clashed with Bishop Alexander. Arius claimed that the Father alone really God; the Son was essentially different from the Father" (Eerdman's Handbook to The History of Christianity)

It was the Council of Nicaea that instituted and adopted Pauline's Trinity Christianity vs Arian's Monotheistic Christianity.

Arian Christianity sounds like its not very different from Islam's assertion.

Hi D,
The Arians might be following of Christ, who was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. Christ himself chided the apostles for preaching to Gentiles, likening the Gentiles to pigs. Does that mean Christ hate Gentiles? It was Paul who was eager to convert the Gentiles. You must remember the Gospel they had then may be different than what we have now,, so definitely the Arian's understanding has some very strong basis and arguments, only to be thrown out by the authority of the Nicene Council at the early 4th CE century

Answer 1

Here is what I found. Today the term Arian, basically means ‘non-Trinitarian’ but that was not all he taught. Though Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the trinity, we do not accept all that Arian taught.

(Most of the following is cut and pasted)

The Arian Controversy
The Trinity controversy came to a head at the beginning of the fourth century C.E. The main protagonists were three philosopher-theologians from Alexandria, Egypt. On the one side was Arius, with Alexander and Athanasius on the other. Arius denied that the Son was of the same essence, or substance, as the Father. He held the Son to be really a son, who therefore had a beginning. Arius believed the Holy Spirit was a person, but not of the same substance as the Father or the Son and in fact inferior to both. He did speak of a “Triad,” or “Trinity,” but considered it to be composed of unequal persons, of whom only the Father was uncreated.

Far-Reaching Consequences
The Trinity controversy did not end at Nicaea. Arianism (which was not true Christianity) made several comebacks over the years. The German tribes that invaded the declining Roman Empire professed Arian “Christianity” and took it into much of Europe and North Africa, where it continued to flourish until well into the sixth century C.E., and even longer in some areas.

The Trinity doctrine divided Christendom for centuries. At various ecumenical councils, theologians philosophized on the precise nature and role of the Son and on whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son. All these wranglings merely confused the notion of God in the minds of people.

In efforts to heal the growing breach between the rival Christian sects whose headquarters were in Rome and Constantinople and to brand as heretical apostate Christian teachers in other cities, various “Ecumenical (Universal) Church Councils” were organized over the centuries. The first one was held in Nicaea, in 325 C.E., in order to condemn the Arian anti-Trinitarian “heresy.”

The leading bishop in Constantinople, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was an Arian, and he succeeded in causing Constantine to change doctrinal horses, so to speak. Now it was the Trinitarians that were banned. In 335 Constantine banished Athanasius to Treves, in Gaul (France). Shortly thereafter, and just before he died, Constantine was baptized by Arian bishop Eusebius.

Pope (or Bishop of Rome) Liberius (358) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, and made a profession of Arianism, that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in his see.

Here it is interesting that in 325 ‘the Church denied Arian, and yet by 358 a ‘Pope’ adopted it to be reinstated to the ‘Holy See’.

=-=-=
Because Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that they are not Trinitarians does not make them Arians.

In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son.

In line with this, historian H. M. Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. We agree, with Jesus and the apostle Paul:

“This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”— (John 17:3)

“There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.

Thus Cardinal Newman wrote that the creeds before Constantine’s time did not make any mention of it.

“They make mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are One, that They are coequal, coeternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them.”—The Development of Christian Doctrine, page 15.

A modern leading Roman Catholic authority testifies in a similar vein: “It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. . . . One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. . . . When one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.”—The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIV, page 295.


Apostolic Fathers include the 1st and 2nd century writers.

J. N. D. Kelly, in his Early Christian Doctrines, writes about the view of Hermas regarding the Son of God:

“In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God’s inner council, and who is regularly described as ‘most venerable’, ‘holy’, and ‘glorious’. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael.”
“There is evidence also . . . of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign.”

Dr. H. R. Boer, in his book A Short History of the Early Church, comments on the thrust of the Apologists’ teaching:

“Justin [Martyr] taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no Son. . . . When God desired to create the world, . . . he begot another divine being to create the world for him. This divine being was called . . . Son because he was born; he was called Logos because he was taken from the Reason or Mind of God. . . .

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists.”

R. P. C. Hanson, in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, states:

“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.”

Dr. Alvan Lamson, in The Church of the First Three Centuries, adds this testimony regarding the teaching of church authorities before the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.):
“The inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers . . . That they viewed the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate.”


Similarly, in the book Gods and the One God, Robert M. Grant says the following about the Apologists:

“The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. . . . What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity . . . Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist.”


Heb 1:3 & 9, explains who Jesus is.

Rev 3:12, tells us what Jesus believed.

Which sentence is proper English? (Jn 1:1)

"Snoopy was dog."

"Snoopy was a dog."

Rev 1:6 tells us what John believed, so we don't have to guess, and this is 60 yrs after Jesus was resurrected.
.


-=-=-=
Thanks for the research.


Paul did not teach a trinity:

.

Answer 2

That was one of the reasons for the First Nicean Council of the early Christian Church. In the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed they used the term "homoousios" (of the same essence) as opposed to "homoiousious" (of similar essence)

There were other reasons as well that included codifying what books would be included in the modern New Testament, but this is one of the major things that council concerned itself with.....

Answer 3

It is my understanding that Arian Christianity is also known as Unitarianism. Those Christians who held Unitarian views were often persecuted.

The way I see it, Unitarian and Islamic views of Jesus are similar.

Answer 4

Yes. Kind of like Puritans, Omish, etc...

Take Care Everyone.

Answer 5

Is Arianism really Christian?
In Semi Arianism anyway Jesus is the Lord and Savior ,unlike in Islam.
Much of Islam is derived from Judaism,Arian and other "Christianities",Zoroastrianism and "Sabeanism".

Answer 6

the considered trinity is as follows: You and me are made out of three factors, we are made out of flesh, bone, and blood. yet you have one recommendations. The flesh does not think of one by one from the bones, and so on. One recommendations regulations the completed physique. What the recommendations wills, the blood and bones and flesh carry out. yet on the comparable time they're all 3 unique. the reason of the trinity and if your thinking basically how can 3 separate 'issues' interior the bible be one and the comparable yet separate? the respond is via the fact all 3 of those 'issues' (father, son holy spirit) have the right comparable function traits. they're all referenced interior the texts as being 'he', so all 3 grow to be a sentient individual, all of them have the traits of being those with intelligence, even the holy spirit. i could quote you verses yet there are maximum of to call i could positioned up a million/2 of the hot testomony. re-study the gospels and save that for the period of recommendations even with the undeniable fact that. Secondly you asked a thank you to view God? No guy can view God, actually. Our eyes can not cope with that quantity of love and mild-weight. The divine mild makes up what God is. a million john a million:5 says God is mild. a million john 4:8 says that God is love. those 2 are the final descriptions interior the completed bible that make up God the daddy (the daddy of lighting fixtures - James a million:17). to not point out Jesus famous quote "i'm the mild of the international" (John 8:12). He replaced into talking actually right here, he replaced into the mild of the international (Revelation 22:sixteen, Genesis a million:3). The trinitarian concept is a not undemanding one to hold close i will admit, I not at all grew up around faith and as a result did not be attentive to what the trinity replaced into. I study the bible distinctive circumstances and studied this and that's INFACT interior the bible after examining it. The trinity is the actual deal. the daddy of lighting fixtures, the only Begotton Son, and the Holy Spirit are ONE (1st john 5:7 KJV). ingredient-observe: All of it extremely is actual, yet I additionally choose you to be attentive to the temple of the Holy Spirit now could be in our hearts (after Christ died). 1st Corinthians 6:19-20. with the intention to all be partakers in being sons of sunshine: Luke sixteen:8 John 12:36 God bless

Answer 7

If you're interested in religious theories check out zeitgeistmovie.com It seems the most logical to me.

Answer 8

Are Aryans even allowed to be christian because they hate so many non whites? Not very Christ like, can they even love him because he's not white?

Answer 9

Yes.